|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2016 04:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 10 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it. I think he talked it down for the sake of the election, but his supporters are going to hold him to building it. He's already going to be walking back a lot of other things ("LOCK HER UP!!!!"), so he better build the wall. Do you realize that the wall shit is: a. Not really doable. It would be INSANELY expensive (we are talking around 20 billion dollars), get the gvt into endless legal problems and be a nightmare to maintain. b. Completely, utterly useless. Illegal immigrant come in an overwhelming majority to the US with a tourist visa. I get that the wall crap is a very exciting prospect for his supporters and a great symbol of what he represents, but it makes 0 sense on every single level. Like, everything he has promised and all his platform. But since it was a fact free campaign, I guess it will be a fact free presidency, and I already bought the popcorns and wait eagerly to see what happens in that little alternate universe of his. $20B is less than 3% our last stimulus package. I mean, efficacy aside, this is a meaninglessly small number. You can just not renew 1 contract on another project to make up the money...
Spending $20B on a vanity project is still throwing money down the toilet. Then again, he'll be getting rid of EPA and the IRS (I think that was his plan), so poor suburbs around the country can drink lead while not paying taxes, but at least they will have a wall on the Mexican border.
|
On November 10 2016 04:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'd love to get my hands on a physical copy of Newsweek's Special Commemorative Edition "Madam President". "Hillary Clinton's historic Journey to the White House".
any one in here call Trump to win this puppy a week ago? whoever did ... talk a bow... good call.
I called it after the Comey announcement, not that it was an impressive call but I definitely did not expect this type of blowout.
|
On November 10 2016 04:27 Acrofales wrote:
Spending $20B on a vanity project is still throwing money down the toilet. Then again, he'll be getting rid of EPA and the IRS (I think that was his plan), so poor suburbs around the country can drink lead while not paying taxes, but at least they will have a wall on the Mexican border.
Getting rid of the IRS was Gary Johnson's plan, not Trump's.
|
On November 10 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
I don't even know if it's the shadow trump vote for the reason that polling was so far off, there was something fundamentally wrong with the methodology. Clinton had a 4 point lead in aggregated polls going into election night, then gets blown out.
4 -> 1 is not a big polling miss.
Some states surely did have popular poll misses. I'd guess it's a mix of underestimating voter suppression efforts, and higher than expected rural turnout.
Many of the states that missed the polls the most:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-coverage/?#livepress-update-18315141
All have new Voter laws that went into effect in either 2012 or 2016 which can also be combined with a large number of poll closings: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/2016/poll-closure-report-web.pdf
I called it after the Comey announcement, not that it was an impressive call but I definitely did not expect this type of blowout.
Calling it a blowout when Trump didn't win the popular vote just makes you look ridiculous and unreasonable.
|
On November 10 2016 04:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 10 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it. I think he talked it down for the sake of the election, but his supporters are going to hold him to building it. He's already going to be walking back a lot of other things ("LOCK HER UP!!!!"), so he better build the wall. Do you realize that the wall shit is: a. Not really doable. It would be INSANELY expensive (we are talking around 20 billion dollars), get the gvt into endless legal problems and be a nightmare to maintain. b. Completely, utterly useless. Illegal immigrant come in an overwhelming majority to the US with a tourist visa. I get that the wall crap is a very exciting prospect for his supporters and a great symbol of what he represents, but it makes 0 sense on every single level. Like, everything he has promised and all his platform. But since it was a fact free campaign, I guess it will be a fact free presidency, and I already bought the popcorns and wait eagerly to see what happens in that little alternate universe of his. $20B is less than 3% our last stimulus package. I mean, efficacy aside, this is a meaninglessly small number. You can just not renew 1 contract on another project to make up the money...
20B$ is a meaninglessly small number if you do something meaningful with it. It's an insane figure for something only designed to keep up with xenophobic fantasies without addressing the issue whatsoever. The congress is never going to ever fund something like that.
|
I was literally in shock after reading the news, I had to stop myself from hyper ventilating. I guess I am too invested into US politics. I am hoping that when I wake up tomorrow it will have turned out to be a hallucination.
|
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place?
|
On November 10 2016 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I was literally in shock after reading the news, I had to stop myself from hyper ventilating. I guess I am too invested into US politics. I am hoping that when I wake up tomorrow it will have turned out to be a hallucination.
you are from the Netherlands... you have zero reason to hyperventilate lol
|
Apparently the problem with the polls is that they badly missed the silent Trump vote -- all of those people who didn't want to admit that they were voting for Trump. Trafalgar was one of the polls that got this election right, and what they apparently did to uncover this silent vote was ask people "Who are your neighbors voting for?" They found like a 3-9 point swing in Trump's favor when they incorporated the data from this question into their methodology.
|
On November 10 2016 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I was literally in shock after reading the news, I had to stop myself from hyper ventilating. I guess I am too invested into US politics. I am hoping that when I wake up tomorrow it will have turned out to be a hallucination.
After Brexit we all woke up in the wrong timeline.
|
On November 10 2016 04:20 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:10 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. I suggest you consider the possibility that Clinton was more of a fringe candidate than even Trump. Check the exit polls on what factors most influenced the voter's decision. A week of solid study of primary sources apart from secondary journalism editorial will do you more good than the partisans in the thread and the people you suspect of being too partisan to be helpful. American politics and political center (call it heart & soul if you wish) is very much different than Europe's, and so too is our fringe. I'm not gonna debate you on definitions. Any candidate who paints a whole country in such broad strokes as to call them 'rapists' is fringe/populist in my European-centric view, yes. If you have detailed and informative links to the breakdown of votes, I'll take those.
Good thing I wasn't talking about definitions, then, I guess. And for the record, he didn't call an entire country rapists. I think you'll have to refer back to the actual quote and how willing you are to take it to the extremes as most of the mainstream media did.
|
Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are.
It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact.
|
On November 10 2016 04:29 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i'd love to get my hands on a physical copy of Newsweek's Special Commemorative Edition "Madam President". "Hillary Clinton's historic Journey to the White House".
any one in here call Trump to win this puppy a week ago? whoever did ... talk a bow... good call.
I called it after the Comey announcement, not that it was an impressive call but I definitely did not expect this type of blowout.
i didn't really follow the campaign closely. i did notice Trump constantly contradicting himself so i thought no one could take him seriously. all the polls had Clinton in the lead. So the result blindsided me.
i called the Trudeau landslide win in Canada 5 seconds after teh first Hazel Mccallion ad aired on TV. Nobody fucks with Hurricane Hazel. 
On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact.
voting occurs via secret ballot for a reason.
people need to be more careful about what aspects of themselves they put online. i've watched way too many people's careers get seriously derailed by some vindictive fuck creeping their facebook .. digging up some dirt and going to HR.
the paranoid survive.
|
On November 10 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
Apparently the problem with the polls is that they badly missed the silent Trump vote -- all of those people who didn't want to admit that they were voting for Trump. Trafalgar was one of the polls that got this election right, and what they apparently did to uncover this silent vote was ask people "Who are your neighbors voting for?" They found like a 3-9 point swing in Trump's favor when they incorporated the data from this question into their methodology.
I don't think they didn't want to admit it. They were legitimately troubled. On one hand, he's a piece of shit. On the other hand, he was, in their minds, their best shot at actually retiring some day and making a proper, sustainable life for themselves. It was survival. Wisconsin rural whites felt they already lost the game. No reason not to try something new, especially when the alternative is voting for something you know isn't working.
Because of this, it took a long time to finally decide "fuck it. I'm worrying about me."
|
On November 10 2016 04:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. Well, if the samples are not representative of the demographic that showed up to vote, then that's a sampling error. I believe we can safely write this one up to Garbage In Garbage Out. You can have the most sophisticated mathematical aggregate, but if your basic data does not fit reality (in this case apparently rural America voting in far larger numbers than expected), then nothing is going to save your model. Oh, and as pointed out above. The best models did account for this uncertainty in the underlying data, and Nate Silver spent every moment of the last week up until the election pointing out how much uncertainty there actually still was in his model (I believe the final estimate was a 71% likelihood that Clinton were to win the election)
To me a sampling error is if say Gallup fails to phone enough rural voters. It's an opinion poll, not a 'are you gonna vote and if so who for' poll. But we're arguing semantics, I agree with GIGO, esp. since Trump lost popular vote.
|
On November 10 2016 04:32 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I was literally in shock after reading the news, I had to stop myself from hyper ventilating. I guess I am too invested into US politics. I am hoping that when I wake up tomorrow it will have turned out to be a hallucination. you are from the Netherlands... you have zero reason to hyperventilate lol
I read a lot of articles about the election and I tend to watch US late night shows and such. The Netherlands takes US politics almost as seriously as it takes its own, too.
I waa so incredibly tired of this election, I was just waiting for it to be over, and for Trump to disappear. To realize it is not over and there is four more years of Trump idiocy, this time with his finger on the nuclear button, is ...not pleasant.
|
On November 10 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
Apparently the problem with the polls is that they badly missed the silent Trump vote -- all of those people who didn't want to admit that they were voting for Trump. Trafalgar was one of the polls that got this election right, and what they apparently did to uncover this silent vote was ask people "Who are your neighbors voting for?" They found like a 3-9 point swing in Trump's favor when they incorporated the data from this question into their methodology.
Thank you, this makes perfect sense.
|
On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact.
And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone.
Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact.
No offense, but this sounds exactly like the "tinfoil hat conspiracy" attitudes perpetuated by the same fringe communities (or when Hofstadter would call the "paranoid style" in American politics). The fact that Mohutsiwa resorts to the most asinine, reductionist interpretation—Freudian mother complex + not getting laid—doesn't make it a plausible insight.
|
On November 10 2016 04:44 Grumbels wrote:
To realize it is not over and there is four more years of Trump idiocy, this time with his finger on the nuclear button, is ...not pleasant.
conventional weapons owned by lots of countires can now do more damage than the only 2 nukes that were dropped on a cities made of mud and balsa wood 70 years ago. u got nothing to worry about. the time for a holocaust was 1989 as the Soviet Union was breaking apart... and it didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
